The Evolution of Law (continuation of the Hovind Blog)

I just wanted to address a topic I spent time reading last night......though I won' t go in to the details.......it involved the application of law, by definition what is Ceaser's, and Biblical/Constitutional authority.

Specifically, there seems to be a misunderstanding in the role the court was intended to play in law so I will give you a quick train-up.

The intention of the Constitution was to be a literally interpreted document, meaning that it was set in stone, understood word for word, and was an absolute authority.

The role of the courts was to interpret law, not the Constitution. In other words they took the absolutes of the Constitution and applied them to the law to see if it was infact "Constitutional"

This was reflected in law through the type of law that was practiced. For years, as the Constitution was understood literally, the other major source of information for lawyers was Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on Law; which were based on Biblical principals.

After Darwin's theory of Evolution became popular a new idea emerged regarding law. Christopher Columbus Langdell of Harvard introduced the idea of case law. He believed that as man is evolving, so should his laws. Case law took the absolutes of the Constitution and gave them over to be interpreted by the Judges. So now the absolutes of Constitutional Law became the opinion of judges based on their morality. Not only that, but the precedence of previous cases means that one bad apple spoils the barrel (Roe vs Wade is a good example) The first major decision in the U.S. court system using case law was the removal of prayer from schools in 1962.

Ironically, this is what Hovind was protesting for the benefit of all of us.

The Constitution took similar courses as the Bible in the minds of many, since the mainstream worldview has changed. It has become clouded by the idea the interpretation is in the eye of the beholder and not the originator of the document. Just as has been done with the Constitution, the authority of the Bible is mocked by those who treat it not as an absolute truth, but a book that can be interpreted to suit their specific beliefs and desires. This kind of thought is a scapegoat people can use to promote their own agenda while convincing others they are in the bounds of the law, when in fact they are not. Sad but true.

 

• 
  
  No, but he understood this principle and that's where all the trouble starts.
  
  
  No, but their meaning was dictated by the originator, not the reader.
  
  

No, you're missing the point. Actually this post was about the Constitution's interpretation. I was just paralleling it with what liberals do with the Bible. To disagree with this assesment is like denying World War II, it happened and secular history confirms it.

No.

Perhaps if I had not mentioned the H word you wouldn't be so mad........Hovind

 

I apologize for coming accross as rude. By train-up I only meant that I would share information that I have. I wasn't trying to tell anyone that they are stupid.

I agree with you. Amendments would require adding hard language to the constitution that would become an absolute on which to guage the law. However, the written language of the Constitution and its amendments is at the mercy of the thousands of judges across the country. Depending on which one you get you'll get a different interpretation.

No most don't. They make new psuedo-law under the guise of obeying the constitution based on their own opinions. The exception is where judges personal opions align themselves with the Constitution.

I know that. All I said was that Blackstone's commentaries were based on Biblical principles. You're putting words in my mouth.

Yes, but Charles Langdell's ideas of law were directly connected to his belief in biological evolution as stated by him.

According to the courts, which is why this discussion is going on. But my topic is on Constitutional law which was being debated on the Hovind thread. I did not mean for my topic to be taken aggressively (because it was associated with the name "Hovind").

When something is taken literally, it usually becomes more clear. A constitution that's definition changes from court case to court case, gives you no guaranteed system of government or unalienable rights. Changes in the meaning of the Constitution should be done through amendment only; and should not be subject to case law interpretation which is the basis of my arguement. Case law serves personal agendas, not the people.